Muslims can do no wrong???

[scorp]

10 Pence Short said:

Colonial said:

Certain suburbs/areas, yes.

But majority of an entire city, let alone a country? No.

Have you ever been to Bradford/Blackburn/Leicester?

Bradford is just over 70% white according to the internet

[G_T]

10 Pence Short said:

Colonial said:

Certain suburbs/areas, yes.

But majority of an entire city, let alone a country? No.

Have you ever been to Bradford/Blackburn/Leicester?

If I see 10 houses and notice that 9 of these houses are owned by Indians does that mean that 90% of the UK is Indian?

Anecdotal evidence us useless in this context. That is unless you went door to door an took a census of the ethnic grouping of every single home in Bradford/Blackburn/Leicester on your previous trips there.

[mechsympathy]

G_T said:

I would like to see a shred of, non-anecdotal, proof that (1) We will be over run by foreigners and (2) that the same foreigners will not respect our values in such numbers as to keep the fringe groups in a minority.

It's also worth remembering that equality laws etc. exist and cannot be overturned on politicians whim. It is effectively constitutional. We are also increasingly moving towards a secular system of government where religious non-sense is no longer tolerated. Both of which negate your points.

Also in terms of "should they be allowed protest", unfortunately yes they should. Whilst I despise those involved freedom of speech is your birth right in this country and I would not change it for the world. Let the wkers make a fuss, we can all see them for what they are anyway.

I find it quite tragic that so many people are frightened by trivial issues like this. The daily tabloids do not exist to reflect reality. They simply sell fear and you've bought it. For example;

SLCZ3 said:

"TAKE IT EASY ON MUSLIM EXTREMISTS, POLICE TOLD",


Police are advised not to arrest/prosecute if there is no clear cut chance of conviction

Do you not think the statement in capitals is a rational interpretation of the statement in bold? It really isn't. It a typical headline designed to invoke a response in the significant numbers of the population who naive and frightened by the concept of different cultures clashing with our own.

Relax. It'll all be fine.

My 2 pence,

G

Indeed

[Pints]

Mclovin said:

bloody religions....why cant we all just be equal as human beings regardless of colour, freedom for all...i dont like to get dogmatic about anything really but these bloody religions and the labour party get on my nerves...peace on earth wont occur until religion and the labour party also are thrown out..

I thought we are all equal. It's just that some are more equal than others

[Police State]

s3fella said:

hairykrishna said:

Shay HTFC said:

To be fair he did say "and live in one of our major cities". Small towns in Somerset do not count.

give it just a few generations and you will be the minority (assuming you are white, English/Indigenous) and live in one of our major cities; London for example.

I would agree with his statement and you would be brave not to. Whether or not this is a negative thing for Britain is subjective. I for one enjoy sharing my space with well educated people from other races and creeds.

Ok then, look at London. ~60% white British. Next largest ethnic group is South Asian at ~13%. There's no way that 60% is going to shrink to a minority group in 2 generations.

I suspect what he means is that the white indigenous population for London will become "not the majority" rather than a minority, and he will be lumping all the "none white groups" in together..... So I think he is suggesting that the white indigenous population of London will dip below 50%..?

And he is probably right if that is what he means!
The Govt will then add a few extra "ethnic bands" so it all looks a bit better to "Middle England" .

Edited by s3fella on Monday 13th July 10:12

Your suspicion is correct; that is essentialy what I meant; I don't want to split hairs with krishna, but '2' is not a few... anyway, current figures are just part of the dynamic (that's assuming you trust government figures of course); you have to factor in things such as birth rates, and indigenous whites moving out of London as they become ethnically displaced. Out of interest, Does anyone here live in London? Krishna, do you?

meanwhile, here are some interesting pictures instead of just bald numbers:

http://www.londonprofiler.org/

[Halb]

The biggest threat to the future is the rise of the Chav!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

[hairykrishna]

Police State said:

Your suspicion is correct; that is essentialy what I meant; I don't want to split hairs with krishna, but '2' is not a few... anyway, current figures are just part of the dynamic (that's assuming you trust government figures of course); you have to factor in things such as birth rates, and indigenous whites moving out of London as they become ethnically displaced. Out of interest, Does anyone here live in London? Krishna, do you?

meanwhile, here are some interesting pictures instead of just bald numbers:

http://www.londonprofiler.org/

In that case I agree. In a few generations the the 'white British' ethnic group, in London, may be less than 50% (although it will almost certainly still be by far the largest group). Out of interest how long does your family need to have lived here to count as 'indigenous'? Why the obsession with white? I will wager that the majority of the 'Asian' ethnic group are British.

I don't live in London. I live in Birmingham.

Edited by hairykrishna on Monday 13th July 16:57

[G_T]

hairykrishna said:

Out of interest how long does your family need to have lived here to count as 'indigenous'? Why the obsession with white?

I've always wondered this.

I've never been accused of being anything British despite only being 50% so by blood. Fortunately for me my ancestry is White otherwise I'd probably feel very intimadated by all this, "White should be the majority everywhere" rhetoric.

This; " you should live here for X number of generation to be really British", is bullst too. My family came here by working in the British army defending this country and it's interests. Even I have sworn allegiance to this island before my non-starter of a military career ended.

My point is there you cannot be more patriotic than me without being a delusional racist. But if I wasn't white some of you would probably label me as "not proper British".

[Chilli]

Police State said:

s3fella said:

hairykrishna said:

Shay HTFC said:

To be fair he did say "and live in one of our major cities". Small towns in Somerset do not count.

give it just a few generations and you will be the minority (assuming you are white, English/Indigenous) and live in one of our major cities; London for example.

I would agree with his statement and you would be brave not to. Whether or not this is a negative thing for Britain is subjective. I for one enjoy sharing my space with well educated people from other races and creeds.

Ok then, look at London. ~60% white British. Next largest ethnic group is South Asian at ~13%. There's no way that 60% is going to shrink to a minority group in 2 generations.

I suspect what he means is that the white indigenous population for London will become "not the majority" rather than a minority, and he will be lumping all the "none white groups" in together..... So I think he is suggesting that the white indigenous population of London will dip below 50%..?

And he is probably right if that is what he means!
The Govt will then add a few extra "ethnic bands" so it all looks a bit better to "Middle England" .

Edited by s3fella on Monday 13th July 10:12

Your suspicion is correct; that is essentialy what I meant; I don't want to split hairs with krishna, but '2' is not a few... anyway, current figures are just part of the dynamic (that's assuming you trust government figures of course); you have to factor in things such as birth rates, and indigenous whites moving out of London as they become ethnically displaced. Out of interest, Does anyone here live in London? Krishna, do you?

meanwhile, here are some interesting pictures instead of just bald numbers:

http://www.londonprofiler.org/

Police State,
I understand exactly what you are saying. I have had this argument before, and you have to be very, very careful with the context of your post, in order not to come accross as a blatent racist nd upset the masses. Every word will be disected and twisted.
For many years I have commuted into London from Essex. I've seen trends. In Barking, you'll see more black people than any other. However, 10 mins down the road, West Ham appears to be full of White people. Dunno why. I get what (I think) you mean though. The ratios are changing, and only going one way, so that would suggest that in XXX years time, the sum of the minorities will be bigger.

[Police State]

Chilli said:

Police State said:

s3fella said:

hairykrishna said:

Shay HTFC said:

To be fair he did say "and live in one of our major cities". Small towns in Somerset do not count.

give it just a few generations and you will be the minority (assuming you are white, English/Indigenous) and live in one of our major cities; London for example.

I would agree with his statement and you would be brave not to. Whether or not this is a negative thing for Britain is subjective. I for one enjoy sharing my space with well educated people from other races and creeds.

Ok then, look at London. ~60% white British. Next largest ethnic group is South Asian at ~13%. There's no way that 60% is going to shrink to a minority group in 2 generations.

I suspect what he means is that the white indigenous population for London will become "not the majority" rather than a minority, and he will be lumping all the "none white groups" in together..... So I think he is suggesting that the white indigenous population of London will dip below 50%..?

And he is probably right if that is what he means!
The Govt will then add a few extra "ethnic bands" so it all looks a bit better to "Middle England" .

Edited by s3fella on Monday 13th July 10:12

Your suspicion is correct; that is essentialy what I meant; I don't want to split hairs with krishna, but '2' is not a few... anyway, current figures are just part of the dynamic (that's assuming you trust government figures of course); you have to factor in things such as birth rates, and indigenous whites moving out of London as they become ethnically displaced. Out of interest, Does anyone here live in London? Krishna, do you?

meanwhile, here are some interesting pictures instead of just bald numbers:

http://www.londonprofiler.org/

Police State,
I understand exactly what you are saying. I have had this argument before, and you have to be very, very careful with the context of your post, in order not to come accross as a blatent racist nd upset the masses. Every word will be disected and twisted.
For many years I have commuted into London from Essex. I've seen trends. In Barking, you'll see more black people than any other. However, 10 mins down the road, West Ham appears to be full of White people. Dunno why. I get what (I think) you mean though. The ratios are changing, and only going one way, so that would suggest that in XXX years time, the sum of the minorities will be bigger.

Bang on the money. For what it’s worth, I don’t care if people think of me as racist; it’s an over simplified aspersion, I don’t always understand it when it is thrown around like loose change; I know I’m not racist, and that is all I have to concern myself with. I see what is happening in London (and other cities), you only have to walk past the school playgrounds or observe the travelling school crocodile trips to the local sports centre to have your eyes confirm what I am stating. I really can’t be arsed to argue/discuss the minutia detail, for they are just momentary snapshots of a much larger fluid picture. There are simply too many (not so) clever dicks ready to jump on the first ‘arguable’ point of fact for this ever to be resolved as an academic argument in totality, except to sit back and watch the chickens come home to roost with the truth.
These are only 2007 figures, they don’t account for the last two years, that I think when eventually published will eclipse the 2007 figures.


The number of babies born to UK-born mothers has risen by six per cent in the six years to 2007, but the figure for immigrant mothers leapt by 64 per cent, accounting for two thirds of the increase in the nation’s birth rate.

In London the figure is 54 per cent, rising to 75 per cent in some boroughs. Foreign-born mothers have an average of 2.54 children, compared with 1.79 for women born in the UK.

A record number of immigrants settled in the UK in the year to June 2007, topping 600,000 for the first time and helping push Britain’s population to a new high of 60,975,000, a rise of almost two million in six years.

On average 1,650 newcomers are settling here every day. There are currently 6.3 million people in the UK who were born abroad – more than 10 per cent of the population and 1.1 million more than in 2004.

[Muntu]

The Times said:

Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece

[mechsympathy]

^^^ You can't claim muslims are original.

[Marf]

Muntu said:

The Times said:

Muhammad is now second only to Jack as the most popular name for baby boys in Britain and is likely to rise to No 1 by next year, a study by The Times has found. The name, if all 14 different spellings are included, was shared by 5,991 newborn boys last year, beating Thomas into third place, followed by Joshua and Oliver.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece

Whens that article from? The link doesnt seem to work.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_...

[Marf]

Never mind, I found it. Its from January 2005

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sitesearch.do?x=0...

Link doesnt work though even going through the search. Interesting that their suppositions kind of fly in the face of the ONS data I posted above

[Muntu]

June 6 2007 according to my link.

Can't think why the link doesn't work for you. The internet is rather odd sometimes.

[Marf]

Oh well, doesnt really matter. Seems like a bit of a non issue to me, when you factor in that its the only muslim name in the top 10(combining all spellings) its still a drop in the ocean compared to plethora of Jacks, Thomas, Olivers, Joshuas, Harrys, Charlies, Daniels, Williams, James, and Alfies

[Muntu]

In itself it is mildly uninteresting, but it does have some relevance to the discussion that immediately preceded my initial post on the subject

[Marf]

Muntu said:

In itself it is mildly uninteresting, but it does have some relevance to the discussion that immediately preceded my initial post on the subject

I wouldnt read too much into it, the prevalence of Mo/Mu/Ma hamed in muslim culture is down to a tradition amongst muslim families to name their first son Mo.

If we were going to be using baby names as an indicator of a significant and marked increase in the muslim population, I'd expect to see other muslim names in the top10, but going by the ONS figures, Mohamed is the only name in the top 100.

Its interesting to note that there are more names derived from Jewish culture in the Top100 than Muslim names.

[Muntu]

Marf said:

If we were going to be using baby names as an indicator of a significant and marked increase in the muslim population, I'd expect to see other muslim names in the top10, but going by the ONS figures, Mohamed is the only name in the top 100.

The name Mo~ heading for the #1 spot does indeed have some significance in terms of demographics and what the article says about muslim vs "western" family sizes, again relevant to the discussion above that I referred to previously

Marf said:

Its interesting to note that there are more names derived from Jewish culture in the Top100 than Muslim names.

The fact that "Jayden" is at #32 is more of a cause for concern

[Marf]

Or Kai at number 62, who names their baby boy Kai?